The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dj123w1
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Obama ought to be impeached;

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
dj123w1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 289 times Debate No: 90858
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

dj123w1

Con

NO! I see that Mr. Instigator has a very closed mind to a new system of presidents. If we look at the American government, who has the most power over this country? Congress. We always look to the president to change this country, but it isn't entirely in his power. The power lies in Congress. If Congress says no, then it doesn't happen. Yes, you can say executive orders, but Congress can still veto it, and a number of executive orders a president can make in their term, are limited. And if you choose to question the other branch of government-The Supreme Court- Congress has power over that too. Plus, the president has limited powers over the Supreme Court and in fact has to answer to them too. We can't challenge that a president is a bad president because his promises don't happen. The president is basically a police officer. He has to enforce the law, thus the term "executive". He has to execute the law. He can offer as much of his promises to Congress as he pleases, but if they say no, that his other changes of making something effective are very limited. If you find that a president should be impeached for other reasons than his presidency, then you are flat out immoral and this discussion is over.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

Actually, I was referring to the Iran deal where Obama wants to give billions of dollars to Muslim terrorists to build nuclear weapons and kill us all. And, according to Article 3 Section 3 of the constitution, the definition of Treason against the United States consists of providing aid to its enemies, and I'm pretty sure billions of dollars to help kill us is considered aid.
dj123w1

Con

If we look at the agreement made with Iran, Mr. Instigator, we can see that it is under Congresses umbrella. It is a treaty offered by us to Iran, one of America's allies, to limit the amount of nuclear weapons that can be traded and used in such case of war. This treaty is more as a way for America to watch the amount of nuclear weapons a country is trying to make. If you read the summary of the bill posed, H.R. 1191, you will see that that is the idea posed.

Here are some of what this bill is trying to pose:

"these negotiations are a critically important matter of national security and foreign policy for the United States and its closest allies"
"even though the agreement may commence, because the sanctions regime was imposed by Congress and only Congress can permanently modify or eliminate that regime"

Mr. Instigator, under the Constitution of the United State, under Article 3 Section 3, it states that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." and according to this bill and Congress, Mr. Obama does is not doing anything in his presidency, and has not done anything in his presidency yet, that would make him fit this description. Furthermore, according to Laws.com, "This part of Article 3 says that treason is when someone tries to attack or wage war against the United States or if he or she tries to help enemies do so in some way." and currently Iran and America are not at war nor, has Mr. President in anyway leveraged one. In fact no one has declared war on Iran, and the chances of that is not very likely at the moment.
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

Actually, we are at war against terror, and Obama is aiding terrorists by giving them money, thus he is giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Also, I forgot to correctly define the deal, Obama is giving them money for "schools" which he, and the rest of us, all know will actually be used for bombs, not schools.
dj123w1

Con

https://www.google.com...

That above is the link to the search on the War on Terror search. According to that search, that war has been going on since the Bush administration, as a cold war. Furthermore, the list of Combatants does not enlist Iran and there is no mention of such.

Mr. Instigator, I would ask that you read H.R. 1191, and please base your argument off of that source as that is the best source to use in this debate. In addition, if you read H.R. 1191, the interior motive is to be used as a channel for intelligence gathering and control over the government. In a way, it is like what the U.S. is doing to Cuba, trying to rid their government of their dictatorship totalitarian government.

On your point about how it could be used for weaponry, you do make a good point. However, we cannot assume that Iran will be using the money provided for weaponry, other than it purpose to be used for education. If this entire argument was based on assumptions, then this argument is basically pointless.

I would ask you Mr. Instigator to please use some evidential sources to support your argument so that I have ground to counterargue what you are proposing. I want to point out again, that this is Congress that has control over this and not Mr. President.
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

No, but Iran is involved in Terrorism and thus Obama is aiding terrorists today.
dj123w1

Con

I ask you Mr. Instigator, are you basing that off of assumption or is that a definite fact? Again, I see no proof whatsoever in your argument, and I and those who vote will be forced to believe that your argument is entirely based on assumption and personal opinions. The burden of proof lies on you, Mr. Instigator and I as a person who seeks a future profession in something that requires arguing and factual evidence to prove a case, and as I have done it before, I am being quite generous in asking to use evidence to prove your argument.

I would first off, before continuing with my argument and factual evidence, ask to please present me with any proof that Iran is a terrorist country.... From my personal knowledge, and according to online Iran is not a terrorist country. Iran is one of America's allies and has always been... You may be confused with Iraq of which is a terrorist country...

http://www.contributoria.com...

But this argument does not lie in the fact that either may be a terrorist country, rather that Mr. Obama is committing treason based on the personal opinions of you. You have failed other than proving your arguments above, that he has done so. Your argument is based on the assumption of what Iran's government purposes are in use for the money that America is loaning to Iran for education. As I have said before, H.R. 1191 says it all and proves it all. If you read the article above, you will find that Iran is not a terrorist country, rather that it is contributing to fighting terrorism.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

Actualy, Iran is an enemy of the United States, see here:
https://www.yahoo.com...
dj123w1

Con

Actually, America is an ally of Iran. It may be so that it has been said by Iran that America is one of their greatest enemies, but if you look at the date of your article, a lot has changed between then and now. Since September last year, terrorism and its flow have changed greatly, and its predictability has changed greatly. Now, into this year, America and Iran are both fighting together against terrorism and still upholding the informal nondiplomatic ties that they still have.

http://www.slate.com...
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dj123w1 7 months ago
dj123w1
I thank Mr. Instigator for understanding.
Posted by dj123w1 7 months ago
dj123w1
I absolutely agree with you, lonely-bird... I would also ask Mr. Instigator to make his argument clear so that I can better understand his point of view.
Posted by Lonely-Bird 7 months ago
Lonely-Bird
more mindless crap.

if the premise is that obama gave them money one would like to see some evidence to support the assertion. or perhaps the instigator is confusing the returning of iranian assets with "giving them money."...
Posted by Ragnar 7 months ago
Ragnar
Unless otherwise specified, violating the character limit has almost always been a conduct violation on DDO.
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
Yes, you're trolling because you're embarrassing me for not instituting debate parameters you made up.
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
I wasn't trolling. I was negotiating terms of a debate.
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
It isn't a conduct violation! Now sdtop trolling!
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
I might be willing to accept it if you agree that the posting of a Google doc that circumvents the character limit equals a conduct violation.
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
Ought to have been since his recent scandals.
Posted by Ragnar 7 months ago
Ragnar
Ought to have been already, or currently we should push through an impeachment?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 6 months ago
tejretics
harrytrumandj123w1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that Iran is an enemy and Obama should be impeached for making a treaty with them. Con proves that the Iran deal ensured that Iran was no longer an "enemy" of the U.S. Con also proves that the deal ensured better security to the US from Iran, thus essentially making it an ally. Pro drops these and fails to explain how the deal helps terrorist causes. Vote Con.